Male Rat Germ Cells Display Age-Dependent and Cell-Specific Susceptibility in Response to Oxidative Stress Challenges1
Bibliographic record
Abstract
For decades male germ cells were considered unaffected by aging, due to the fact that males continue to generate sperm into old age; however, evidence indicates that germ cells from aged males are of lower quality than those of young males. The current study examines the effects of aging on pachytene spermatocytes and round spermatids, and is the first study to culture these cells in isolation for an extended period. Our objective is to determine the cell-specific responses germ cells have to aging and oxidative insult. Culturing isolated germ cells from young and aged Brown Norway rats revealed that germ cells from aged males displayed an earlier decline in viability, elevated levels of reactive oxygen species (ROS), and increased spermatocyte DNA damage, compared to young males. Furthermore, oxidative insult by prooxidant 3-morpholinosydnonimine provides insight into how spermatocytes and spermatids manage excess ROS. Genome-wide microarray analyses revealed that several transcripts for antioxidants, Sod1, Cat, and Prdxs, were up-regulated in response to ROS in germ cells from young males while being expressed at lower levels in the aged. In contrast, the expression of DNA damage repair genes Rad50 and Atm were increased in the germ cells from aged animals. Our data indicate that as germ cells undergo spermatogenesis, they adapt and respond to oxidative stress differently, depending on their phase of development, and the process of aging results in redox dysfunction. Thus, even at early stages of spermatogenesis, germ cells from aged males are unable to mount an appropriate response to manage oxidative stress.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".